The No-trade Deadline

by Marvellous on Feb 21, 2012 9:20 AM EST

In this Internet-crazed age, we are so starved for headlines that we create them even when there are no headlines to create.

As an example, Eklund of Hockeybuzz has been spinning yarns daily about trade rumours for weeks even months now... and he is not the only one.

All of this hype, along with a huge shortage of what teams really need artificially drives up the price of players that teams want to get rid of. They want as much as they can get for them... as well they should...

HOWEVER, the monotony of hearing the same-old same-old everyday non-news about the pending trading of Rick Nash and Carter is just very wearing.

Just imagine how it must be for these players who have to answer the same stupid questions everyday and have to protect themselves by saying all of the right things in case they end up not getting moved, no matter how they feel about being where they are.

In the end most of these moves are an overvalued waste of assets, a pie-in-the-sky reach for a hope somewhere that this particular player will be the difference and will help them win Lord Stanley.

Do a better job in the draft and build your organizations so that you won't have to be desperately trying to dump players in favour of others who are not going to help anymore than the ones you have.

Over the past number of years we gave away countless second round picks for rentals (Bondra, Stillman, Saprykin, Sutton, Comrie (for a 1st)) that brought very little to the table and then went to other teams... as did those picks. My examples might lack a bit in accuracy as to what we got, but the point here is that we paid a hefty price for our folly.

Yes, there are examples where this kind of strategy actually works. However, I'd rather see us focus on getting better at drafting and building our own players.

The teams that do that well year in and year out do not need to rely on this trade deadline exercise in desperation to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

This FanPost was written by a member of the Silver Seven community, and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or opinions of the site managers, editors, or Sports Blogs Nation, Inc.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Title of thread would sound better if it just was No-Trade Deadline

by Sensfan90 on Feb 21, 2012 9:24 AM EST reply actions

Overkill

OK thanks, maybe that title was a little bit of overkill.

by Marvellous on Feb 21, 2012 9:55 AM EST reply actions

Je ne suis pas si sur.

Look at Boston. They picked up Kelly for a second and he helped them a fair bit for the Cup. Are you talking about rental players or trade deadline deals?

by Bikini Cowboy on Feb 21, 2012 10:08 AM EST reply actions

Un cas spécial

I’m talking about rental players and overpriced trade deadline deals where the price gets driven up by the artificial demand of the moment. Kelly was a special case, and Boston benefited greatly because we developed him really well as a role player.

You can debate for a long time whether this type of a role is worth Kelly’s salary. If it were, then Kelly would probably be back with the Sens.

Now that you looked at one of the deals that apparently worked, take a look at all of the other deals that happened last year that didn’t work out.

by Marvellous on Feb 21, 2012 10:32 AM EST reply actions

I seriously doubt the hype drives up the price at all

It drives up the perceived value from a fan perspective, but it won’t have any impact on the professional assessments.

I will agree that the other factors you listed can definitely drive up the price, though.

by B_T on Feb 21, 2012 11:47 AM EST reply actions

Egos run the show

Yes, professional assessments are important, because these GMs have staff meetings and processes to follow, but I wouldn’t underestimate the power of the ego when it comes to getting these guys in a bidding war. Egos follow and get fed by the size of the hype.

Do you remember the Thomas Vanek bidding war? Egos ran the show big time on that one… Logic and sanity went out the window… and the Sabres are still paying for that one BIG TIME.

by Marvellous on Feb 21, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, egos are there

But I don’t think those are driven by media hype over a specific player or the deadline. That’ll all be internal, back-room politics type stuff as well as “previous history”.

by B_T on Feb 21, 2012 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

In the end most of these moves are an overvalued waste of assets, a pie-in-the-sky reach for a hope somewhere that this particular player will be the difference and will help them win Lord Stanley.

That’s why I’m glad we’re not buying aggressively this year… we’d pay a huge premium, as everyone does around deadline day.

On the other hand, our past purchases have mostly been acceptable opportunity costs, in my opinion. Bondra might not have worked out, but I think Saprykin, Stillman, and Sutton were as successful as could be expected.

Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay

by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 22, 2012 4:27 PM EST reply actions

Yeah... limited potential

That’s the point…

… as successful as could be expected

to me means that a rental player has limited potential. And at the same time, you and I never know what kind of a player we would have had with those second round picks that we gave away for this “limited” potential.

I understand the thinking that goes behind this kind of a deal, and IMO, in the long run, it just ain’t worth the cost. Just as one example, instead of the Saprykin deal we could have had Adam Henrique (a guy I thought was drafted way too late at the time), or we had two 2nd round picks and could have traded up a bit and landed Markstrom.

Yeah, I know… hindsight is always great… but in general I’d rather roll the dice in the draft than spend on rentals.

by Marvellous on Feb 23, 2012 7:51 AM EST reply actions